Decided on October 25, 2012
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Angela M. Mazzarelli,Justice Presiding, Richard T. Andrias David Friedman John W. Sweeny, Jr. James M. Catterson,Justices.
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Jorge Guttlein, was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on July 7, 1980. Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York (Roberta N. Kolar, of counsel), for petitioner. Richard M. Maltz, for respondent. M-1731 (June 11, 2012)
IN THE MATTER OF JORGE GUTTLEIN, AN ATTORNEY
Respondent Jorge Guttlein was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on July 7, 1980, under the name Jorge DeJesus Guttlein. At all times relevant to these proceedings, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.
The Departmental Disciplinary Committee seeks an order, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.3, publicly censuring respondent predicated upon similar discipline imposed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In the alternative, the Committee seeks an order sanctioning respondent as we deem appropriate.
By referral orders dated December 18, 2007 and March 10, 2008, the Second Circuit referred respondent to its Committee on Admissions and Grievances (CAG) to investigate and report on whether he should be subject to discipline or other corrective measures. These orders were based on: 1) the dismissal of 31 out of 50 petitions for review for failure to comply with the court's scheduling orders; 2) the dismissal of three additional petitions based upon respondent's failure to file the required Civil Appeal Pre-Argument Statement; 3) the poor quality of respondent's brief in one case which failed to address the basis of an administrative agency's decision as well as the failure to exhaust the client's administrative remedies; and 4) the Second Circuit's order in Vargas-Gonzalez v U.S. Dept. Of Justice, 05-3562-ag, which granted a motion for reinstatement filed by respondent, despite the untimeliness of the request.
A hearing was held on September 19, 2008 before a subcommittee of the CAG at which respondent, represented by counsel, testified and submitted material in explanation as to each of the above allegations of misconduct, as well as with respect to personal and financial issues which affected his large immigration practice. In May 2009, the CAG filed its report finding respondent guilty of misconduct by clear and convincing evidence and recommending that he be given a public reprimand and that he comply with certain reporting requirements.
By order entered May 20, 2010, the court adopted the CAG report, including its recommendation of a public reprimand and status report requirements. In its order, the court cited additional relevant conduct by respondent that included additional defaults in scheduling orders and late filing of briefs. It is this order of ...